How or Why?

In a conversation with an evolutionist recently I asked him how free-will and morality evolved. He then explained that they evolved because of the need for increased social interaction.

I didn't pick up on what was going on at the time, but as hindsight would always afford us, it is now quite clear what had occured: I had asked how it evolved and he had answered with why he believed it evolved.

This is a common fallacy of evolutionism - namely glossing over the answer has to how something evolved with why they think it evolved, as if this explains it. The problem is that evolutionists have three main choices (Lamarkism, Darwinisn or Punctuated Equilibria) to explain how something evolved, and none of these even comes close to being able to justify any of their beliefs as to why it evolved.

Lamarkism says that giraffes had short necks, but as they stretched for higher branches over time their necks became longer as they slowly passed the increments onto their offspring. Darwinism says that as mutations happened in genomes over time, such mutations as turned out to be beneficial caused the creature/s to survive better or instead of their furry friends. Punctuated Equilibria came along after evolutionists started realising the limitations of Darwinism (or Natural Selection) and decided that the millions of changes between different kinds of animals happened instantaneously, i.e a bird hatched out of a reptile egg (sic).

Since removing a transcendent, intelligent programmer leaves only naturalistic explanations, which work in the realms of chance, you will find that evolutionists will skip over the theoretical impracticalities of explaining how something evolved and simply tell you why they think it evolved - believing that this is a perfectly valid answer to your question. Such is the level of indoctrination in this world that otherwise intelligent people will confidently spout logical fallacies and circular arguments, all the while thinking they are presenting not just a sound argument but the objective truth.

I had a similar result with a Harvard professor, who explained that zombie-ant fungus evolved to control ants to their own reproductive ends by the same way all complex genomes evolved - by tiny incremental changes over a long time. In this instance he went a step further and told me which evolutionary mechanism he believed explains it, but still avoided saying how it evolved, i.e. how those incremental changes have taken a fungus reproducing from normal spore dispersal to zombie-fying ants and exploding out their heads Alien style.

As usual, we must surrender reason and logic to the gods of Time and Chance, not to be questioned in their infallibility.